The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1887-05-28

work verified
4th-The facts do not show, nor has
any reasonable mind been convinced,
"that the work could only be accom-
plished through long, tedious and intri-
cate labor by an expert or person who
who had made, or would make, a
special study of the work." The facts,
on the contrary, show that the princi-
pal part Of the work has been done by
attorneys or agents of Rutland in the
different parishes who looked up the
data from the records of their respective
parishes aud upon the data furnished
him he was thereby enabled to make
the corrections on the Auditors books.
This work cost Rutland, on an average,
SIS in each parish. The Auditor and
Superintendent Of Public Education
knew what it was costing the school
children of the State to get the interest
due them. Now, in all candor, would
it not have been better for them, as
faithful public officials, with due re-
gard for the trusts placed in their keep
ing, to have Informed the school boards
Of the Slate that it was costing them
outrageous!y tt get their school money
and insisted upon them furnishing the
necessary data to enable the Auditor to
give them the proper credit upon his
hooks instead of advising the accept
ance Of Rutland's monstrOus PROPOSE
ton? The school boards could have
got the work done as cheaply as Rut-
land got it done. II this course had
been pursued do you, Mr.. States, see "a
saving Of over ten Thousand dollars 10
the school children of the State? The
school board of the parish of Morehouse
attempted to pursue this policy 1t
employed home lawyer who locked
up the necessary data and forwarded it
to the Auditor but could get no response
and the board was ultimately forced to
accept Rutland's proposition or in the
language of the Richiand Beacon, ssget
nothing or words to that effect!
shit may have been shown, bnt
it is not fact, that Rutland has been
engaged for ten years in this work.
1t is fact that Rutland was engaged
as an attorney several years ago, in
1883 or 1881, we believe, in a suit be-
tween the parishes of East Carroll
and Union involving the right to
10th sections, but that had no possible
connection with his present employ
lDent, which began in 1885. But adj
mittiug this specification t, be true it
has absolut Ely nothing whatever to do
with the principle involved-the en-
ployment of private individual to
exercise the functions of a sworn,
bonded and salaried official. The plea,
is made, no doubt, to lessen, on the
face of tho papers, tho magnitude OF
Rut!aud's pay. The States says that
his reward has been less than one
tenth the enormous sum alleged. So
RntIand states, but we have, so far,
found it Impossible II get the official
figures. We are willing at any rate to
wager our friend Of the States a fine
supper, payable at Lake Charles on the
night OF the nth Of June next, tina,
his fee will go considerably over one
tenth. With reference t, the alIusiou
to Col Lott we can endorse every word
it says as to his high character, but il
we have not been misinformed the
States misreprescpts him in several
particulars. Wo do not believe that
Col. Lott over recommended the en-.
ploymcnt of Rutland by the school
board Of his parish. On the contrary
we think Col. Lott secured the data tC
enable the Auditor to give West Cal
roll her proper credits and attempted
while in Baton Rouge on certain
occasion t, collect the interest himself,
but failed to- do so, we know not why
and turned the data over t. Rutland
under the misappre heusion that Rut
land was to collect the money on the
same terms that he had proposed tC
his school board before leaving home.
His ,eruHs was that Of good cit 'zn.
and pa!riOt--nuthing.
We beg pardon of the readers of tho
Telegraph for iutlicting this rathe,
lengthy article upon them. The windi.